lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cpuset: Rework sched domains and CPU hotplug handling (take 4)
On 8/12/08, Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Rakib wrote:
> >> Ok, this is the second place. But, what about the first place ( I
> >> mean in line 614).
> >
> > You present me with a clear choice.
> >
> > I could find your past patch, applying it to whatever it applied to,
> > and look to see what was at line 614.
> >
> > Or I could ask you to restate your point, with enough code
> > displayed so that I could understand your point just by reading
> > your email.
> >
> > I choose the second choice. Thank-you.
>
>
> I think Rakib is talking about this code
Yes, Max you are right . I'm talking about the following code.
>
>
> > /* Special case for the 99% of systems with one, full, sched domain */
> > if (is_sched_load_balance(&top_cpuset)) {
>
> > doms = kmalloc(sizeof(cpumask_t), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!doms)
>
> > goto done;
>
> >
> > dattr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct sched_domain_attr), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (dattr) {
> > *dattr = SD_ATTR_INIT;
> > update_domain_attr_tree(dattr, &top_cpuset);
> > }
Don't you think , the memory allocation here needs to be checked ?
> > *doms = top_cpuset.cpus_allowed;
> >
>
> > ndoms = 1;
> > goto done;
> > }
>
> Which I think is perfectly fine and clear.
>
> There are only two matches for
> /attr.*=.*alloc
> We covered both of them.
>
>
> Max
>
>
>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-12 19:21    [W:0.976 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site